I'm not entirely convinced by the study that Henrich used for the Machiguenga people. It seems to rely heavily on the assumption that a choice to accept or punish remains relatively constant as the pile of cash gets larger. I'm a little skeptical of this, and I feel like as the stakes get higher, people are more likely to accept a lowball offer, because it still amounts to a sizeable chunk of cash. It mentioned that the money was equivalent to a few days wages for the Machiguenga, and I'm curious if it was the same amount (in time, not gross dollar amount) when they did the study in North America. And even then, there are plenty of other variables, like how desperate you are for money, how much you have in savings, etc. I suspect there are a lot of other factors at work here.
All true. If I were presented this deal with a total stranger who offered me, say, $30/$100 -- yeah, I'd take it. That's a tank of gas as opposed to not having a tank of gas. I have no clue where the "fuck you stop lowballing" thing comes in -- an American thing? The article says it's American to offer 50/50 ... I guess the thinking being that it's just luck that either player has the opportunity, so it should even out? If all of that is the case, where is the point that you mention, where "fuck you" becomes, "I would be an idiot to turn down even that amount"? Glad you mentioned this; the game theory section was what hooked me on the article and was also the most interesting part of it to me.